Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KUCERA v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 8 (entry of the applicant's apartment by the police) Violation of Art. 8 (refusal to allow the applicant to ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.11.2003 - 48666/99
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 48666/99
• EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 48666/99

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 48666/99

  It therefore cannot suffice to deprive the applicant of his status as a "victim" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; and, mutatis mutandis, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 44).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 48666/99

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (for a recapitulation of the relevant case-law see, for example, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-45, ECHR 2006-..., with further references).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 48666/99

  It therefore cannot suffice to deprive the applicant of his status as a "victim" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; and, mutatis mutandis, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 44).

• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE

  Pour déterminer si une ingérence est « nécessaire, dans une société démocratique ", la Cour tient compte de la marge d'appréciation laissée aux autorités nationales, mais l'État défendeur reste tenu de démontrer l'existence d'un besoin social impérieux sous-jacent à l'ingérence (Kucera c. Slovaquie, no 48666/99, § 127, 17 juillet 2007 ; et Klamecki c. Pologne (no 2), no 31583/96, § 144, 3 avril 2003).
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Nevertheless, any restriction of that kind must be applied "in accordance with the law", must pursue one or more of the legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 and, in addition, must be justified as being "necessary in a democratic society" (see, among other authorities, Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 8014/07

  FRUNI v. SLOVAKIA

  Continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 110 et seq., ECHR 2000-XI, and Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 94, ECHR 2007 IX).

 
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  VLASOV v. RUSSIA

  Nevertheless, any restriction of that kind must be applied "in accordance with the law", must pursue one or more legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 and, in addition, must be justified as being "necessary in a democratic society" (see, among other authorities, Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003).
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  YEVGENIY BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA

  Although the Court may accept that the seriousness of charges might form the basis for detention at the initial stages of the proceedings (see Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 37-38, 4 May 2006, and Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 95, ECHR 2007 (extracts)), it cannot agree that it may be accepted at an advanced stage of the proceedings as the main reason for a person's detention.
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08

  PYATKOV v. RUSSIA

  As the Court has previously observed, the existence of a general risk flowing from the organised nature of criminal activities may be accepted as the basis for detention at the initial stages of the proceedings (see Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 37 and 38, 4 May 2006, and Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 95, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 1600/09

  KOROLEVA v. RUSSIA

  As the Court has previously observed, the existence of a general risk flowing from the organised nature of criminal activities may be accepted as a basis for detention at the initial stages of the proceedings (see Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 37 and 38, 4 May 2006, and Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 95, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06

  VARNAS v. LITHUANIA

  Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded that there was a particular reason to prevent the applicant from having conjugal visits with his wife (see, by contrast, Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 130, 17 July 2007; Baginski v. Poland, no. 37444/97, § 92 et seq., 11 October 2005; and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 135, 3 April 2003).
• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06

  SHTEYN (STEIN) v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously considered that the existence of a general risk flowing from it may be accepted as the basis for detention at the initial stages of the proceedings (see Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 95, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 37 and 38, 4 May 2006).
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05

  VELIYEV v. RUSSIA

  As the Court has previously observed, the existence of a general risk flowing from the organised nature of criminal activities may be accepted as the basis for detention at the initial stages of the proceedings (see Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 95, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 37 and 38, 4 May 2006).
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 42239/02

  STAROKADOMSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 43611/02

  BELOZOROV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
• EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03

  ARTEMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 21780/07

  ALEKSEJEVA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 39633/10

  COSTEL GACIU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 3522/04

  SALMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 24205/06

  BOGUSLAW KRAWCZAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 35933/06

  POKRIVKA AND SITTA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 25537/08

  KOMISSAROVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 52990/08

  DAVISON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 17.03.2009 - 50184/06

  MARTIKAN v. SLOVAKIA